85 People have 50% of World's Riches

[mecch]

The movers and shakers (cough) are in Davos discussing income inequality, the diplomats are all in Montreux for the Syrian peace talks.

Meanwhile this is on all the lefty media:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/85-richest-people_n_4641021.html

About the 85 people with all the cash! 

I doubt the movers and shakers and diplomats (and discrete private bankers in the quiet salons of the Montreux Palace) protecting Assad's rumoured 25 billion are going to ever do much about income inequality....

[Jeff G]

It seems to me that its a recipe for a revolution once people wake up to the facts about income inequality .

[mecch]

Read the Oxfam report itself, too.  Grim facts:
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-summ-en.pdf

In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis
growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

[mecch]

It seems to me that its a recipe for a revolution once people wake up to the facts about income inequality .

I think thats what the World Economic Forum global risk is hinting at.  Income Disparity has been No. 1 "Likely" Global Fisk for 3 years running now.  No 2 is Extreme Weather Events.   Then: Unemployment and Underemployment, followed by Climate Change and Cyber Attacks, at No. 5:

http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2014-report

[mecch]

The Pope has piped in on it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543528/Pope-urges-Davos-elite-poor-ensure-humanity-served-wealth-not-ruled-it.html

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-pope-francis-20140122,0,3908066.story#axzz2rGoTZtJi

Pope Francis to the Davos wealthy: Stop thinking only of yourselves

[mitch777]

It seems to me that its a recipe for a revolution once people wake up to the facts about income inequality .

I agree. The clock is ticking.

[mecch]

Maybe the Pope should tell his flock to fight to take it back...  Preaching to the powers who don't give a fuck won't change things much.

[Jeff G]

Maybe the Pope should tell his flock to fight to take it back...  Rather than preaching to the powers who don't give a fuck.

Or maybe the Vatican can show good faith and sell a little real estate and give it to the poor .

[mecch]

A year ago I tried to research the wealth of the Vatican and came up with bupkis. I don't think the Vatican controls the wealth of its churches around the world. 

Also, this:

Millionaires mad at Pope Francis’ wealth talk may close coffers to St. Patrick’s

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mad-millionaires-wary-st-patrick-pope-talk-article-1.1562984#ixzz2rGvc0Upy

[tednlou2]

We recently debated the minimum wage and what that figure should be.  I was surprised to see these figures.  If accurate, this shows how we have gone backward. 





This is what MLK and others were wanting it raised to.





And, I read this about corporate welfare and how much it costs taxpayers.  Many companies, including fast food companies, reap huge benefits.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/16/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-corporations-and-the-ultra-rich/

[bocker3]

Maybe the Pope should tell his flock to fight to take it back...  Preaching to the powers who don't give a fuck won't change things much.

This line of thinking is no better than that of who you rail against.  All I hear is you wanting "others", "the poor" to take up arms and put their lives on the line to take back power.  What are YOU willing to do, besides sit back and spout out what you think OTHERS should do??

And BTW, not sure if the Vatican controls the wealth of its churches around the world, but it sure does have unimaginable wealth under it's control in Vatican City.  While I respect Pope Francis' change in tone and his personal example, what is he really doing?  Again, asking other rich people to give up things, yet I'm seeing none of the Vatican's wealth flowing anywhere to help its flock.

M

[Jeff G]

This line of thinking is no better than that of who you rail against.  All I hear is you wanting "others", "the poor" to take up arms and put their lives on the line to take back power.  What are YOU willing to do, besides sit back and spout out what you think OTHERS should do??

And BTW, not sure if the Vatican controls the wealth of its churches around the world, but it sure does have unimaginable wealth under it's control in Vatican City.  While I respect Pope Francis' change in tone and his personal example, what is he really doing?  Again, asking other rich people to give up things, yet I'm seeing none of the Vatican's wealth flowing anywhere to help its flock.

M

You can fight without taking up arms . Mecch didn't say he supports violence in any way that I can tell . It still doesn't change the fact that people are going to have to fight for their right for a level playing field . That's the way I see it any way . 

[mecch]

Everybody is implicated and I don't believe or say otherwise.   

I've been dedicated to learning and dialogue on socio-economic realities for almost 30 years, with my labour, effort, research, money, activism and speech.

I don't advocate violence.

My profile tag line on this site has been the same since I joined years ago.

But Bocker3, feel free to misquote, misread and misjudge me - it's your style!
Go ahead, dear, get it all out. I know how the rage builds up in you.  Let loose. Maybe you'll feel better. 

[bocker3]

But Bocker3, feel free to misquote, misread and misjudge me - it's your style!
Go ahead, dear, get it all out. I know how the rage builds up in you.  Let loose. Maybe you'll feel better. 

Oh aren't you cute!!!  If you think your Marxist rubbish produces rage in me, you give yourself far too much credit.  A chuckle, mayhap, a shake of the head, unquestionably, but rage -- not even close.  Perhaps you are projecting your feelings onto me.

[mecch]

It's a shame you never learned to discuss hot topics without going personal, and quickly at that. I'll blame your shitty high school teachers, or perhaps you weren't paying attention.   

So you shut down conversation in this thread, bravo.

Why don't you create threads to discuss today's zeitgeist, instead of spewing bitterness when others try to.

[tednlou2]

I just learned this.  The NFL is tax-exempt.  They are socialist, as they spread the wealth to teams that aren't as successful or popular.  Baseball doesn't do that.  But, tax-exempt?!  I agree with repubs that the tax code needs to change.  I just differ in how to do that.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9342479/examining-nfl-tax-exempt-status-challenged-us-senator-tom-coburn

http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/can-the-revenue-rich-national-football-league-really-be-tax-exempt-irs-says-yes.html/

[mecch]

Thursday's The Daily Show did good satire on the events in Montreux and Davos.
http://www.thedailyshow.com

(typically they got the kitschy Swiss backdrops wrong though - Montreux is a lakeside resort with international style architecture and sub-tropical gardens....)

[Miss Philicia]

"War" on the Rich Is Like Nazi Germany's War on the Jews

[Theyer]

I would like to add my voice to the could we discuss these items without behaving like politicans .

The vast structural economic difference in the world is a threat to all off us . There are debates about how to ensure somewhat better distribution off the worlds assets , some business leaders are even putting them into practice. I particularly like the maximum wage clause. The highest paid worker will earn xxx more than the lowest is a simple one . Not perfect , nothing is but but a step beyond Davos merely noting how inequality  will destabilize the safety off production.  [ and be personally more restrictive and dangerous to those who Davos attendees live with ]

As to the Holly Father,s change in emphasis I believe it  is very revolutionary , but changing the power structures off the Vatican must one off the hardest job.s in the world .

Distribution off wealth is not about taking rich peoples money away from them , its ensuring that all receive a fair cut for the work they do and that all people pay taxes.

In many parts off the world to be rich means having personal security for your home , your family . Constantly living with the fear off kidnap /attack . This is not progress.

[Miss Philicia]

Interesting article on why this incessant focus on the 1% is a bit misplaced.

note: Southerners clicking on that will become offended

[Jeff G]

Interesting article on why this incessant focus on the 1% is a bit misplaced.

note: Southerners clicking on that will become offended

Its not offensive to me in the least . I think people need to see things like this and its never been a secret anyway that low income southerners are more apt the stay that way .

Some southern people embrace the whole I'm just a simple man with simple needs mentality almost as a badge of honor . There are many community's in the south that do not welcome change even if its for the good .

[mecch]

Is this is typo:

The good news is that people at the bottom are just as likely to move up the income ladder today as they were 50 years ago. But the bad news is that people at the bottom are just as likely to move up the income ladder today as they were 50 years ago.

Or does it mean 50 years ago upward mobility was the same as it is today?

You've posted interesting articles in the past about regional economies and cultures are important contexts when trying to discuss national trends.

I dont see that the information in your article is incompatible with discussions of distribution of wealth, globally. 

I think you can think about all this stuff, simultaneously. 

And there are those who argue that yes, there are not unlimited riches to go around.  So if the uber-rich are getting richer and richer, it DOES mean there is less in the middle and even less in the poor, than before.  This argument can be boiled down into tangible claims, such as - big corporations are still highly profitable.  But if a big corporation is mostly filled with "unskilled" labour, and those wages are declining to the cost of living, over decades, than wealth IS being transferred to the rich. 

I do really think bottom line, the uber-rich of the world can't have so much of the pie, if there is any hope of improving the lives of people living in poverty.  A viewpoint such as mine is too easily convoluted/simplified by a "fox news mentality" to the leftists who hate the rich, or want to take away their money. Well take it away? No, but going forward, why not more progressive taxation, and also make corporations that spit out this wealth more accountable to its labour.   It used to be 3 stakeholders in production - labour, management/ownership, and investors...

Well, put it this way, FDR's income tax DID redistribute wealth.  And look at how well that turned out, creating solid middle classes and, for some, liveable working class lifestyles in the 50's and 60s and 70s.  Of course, there were "living wage" jobs available then....

Anyway, a good read. Good suggestions in the closing paragraphs.

[GSOgymrat]

Regarding the top 1%, I am less concerned about their effect on the financial mobility of the general population than the influence of a few incredibly wealthy and powerful individuals on government and the economy. I haven't researched this topic so my concerns may be unfounded.

[Jeff G]

Regarding the top 1%, I am less concerned about their effect on the financial mobility of the general population than the influence of a few incredibly wealthy and powerful individuals on government and the economy. I haven't researched this topic so my concerns may be unfounded.

I agree with this 100 percent .

[Since2005]

Is this is typo:

The good news is that people at the bottom are just as likely to move up the income ladder today as they were 50 years ago. But the bad news is that people at the bottom are just as likely to move up the income ladder today as they were 50 years ago.

Or does it mean 50 years ago upward mobility was the same as it is today?

I agree these topics do need to be discussed. Especially, if you believe in exercising freedom of speech. Personally, it is sometimes excruciating to know how much more money some new Yorkers have than other less fortunate ones, and yet they all live in the same city. Some spends thousands on dinner and some few bucks. Its amazing I feel like I see the 'difference in living' in nyc more than any other places in the states.

About upward mobility issues, yes it is still possible, if you look at self made billionaires Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. Of course, very own USA president who himself came from a middle class family. So, in USA/Europe it is still somewhat possible to change 'class' lot more rapidly than if one is from a third word country (Asia/Africa)

But, it is astonishing  knowing the number 85!! .. well, thanks for sharing.

[zach]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqlxrQ2iE8s